Standing Committee B

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Gambling Bill

Peter Pike: May I indicate to the Committee that I will be chairing the sitting on Thursday morning and, in accord with the Speaker's statement, at 11 o'clock we will stand and have two minutes' silence to observe Remembrance day? I tell you that now, although I will also remind you on Thursday morning, as it would help if people were not going in and out of the Room at that time. I will simply call for the two minutes' silence and Members will stand.Clause 1 The licensing objectives

Clause 1 - The licensing objectives

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 1, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 7, after first 'crime', insert ', public nuisance'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Peter Pike: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
 Amendment No. 71, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 8, after second 'crime', insert 
 'or being operated by anyone with a criminal record,'.
 Amendment No. 72, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 9, after 'fair', insert 'socially responsible'.
 Amendment No. 36, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert— 
 '(d) ensuring that there is no link between excessive drinking after licensing hours and casino gambling in city or town centres.'.
 Amendment No. 37, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert— 
 '(d) ensuring that the views of the Chief Constable for any police area determine the appropriateness of any increase in gambling provision in that area.'.
 Amendment No. 73, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert— 
 '(d) ensuring the development of new gambling opportunities is gradual and controlled to minimise the potential for social harm.'.
 Amendment No. 80, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert— 
 '(d) promoting fair competition between those associated with gambling.'.

Richard Page: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Pike. I am delighted to see you, as I was having a little trouble just before we adjourned. I am sure that, with your fingertip control, all will go smoothly from now on.
 If I remember correctly, I was saying that the Government made a big mistake in not agreeing with the scrutiny Committee's advice on a more coherent 
 pattern of guidance to the regions. I remind hon. Members what the Joint Committee said: 
''While we acknowledge the Government's reluctance to publish national guidance relating specifically to regional/leisure destination casinos, we believe that it could help to ensure a consistent approach between regional authorities and avoid the need for applications to be called in for determination by the First Secretary of State.''
 Amendment No. 73 goes to the core of the debate and touches on this matter to a significant extent. In response to the Joint Committee, the Government stated: 
''The Government accepts that national planning policy guidance should, where it is appropriate, deal with casinos.''
 The response then says that various papers 
''and the two joint statements already provide a comprehensive policy framework.''
 I was taken aback by that response, and subsequent events have shown that the public and the media have come down very much on the side of the Joint Committee rather than that of the Government, hence all the media excitement of the past couple of weeks. 
 Amendment No. 73 is key to the whole debate. If the Minister were inclined to accept it, we could all pack up and go home. If we could be clear about how new gambling opportunities will be developed and expanded, everyone would know exactly where they were. 
 When my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) spoke to amendment No. 73 and was asked what he had in mind, he mentioned pilot schemes. Perhaps the Government should actively consider that route. The Joint Committee suggested that the Government examine very closely the French system as a means 
''of ensuring the development of new gambling opportunities is gradual and controlled'',
 to quote from the amendment. In France, central Government say to various cities and towns that they can have a casino, and then the city or town negotiates with the various bidders to get all the benefits that it thinks it needs. 
 We visited one centre that had recently been granted permission to have a casino. The casino operator built a new theatre, and many roads and other means of access were improved. That type of benefit could accrue, but the interesting thing was that the new casino developments were dictated by central Government. I am not saying that that is the way to go, but it is obvious that the public have comprehensively taken fright at the idea of unbridled expansion. The Government are on record as saying that the market should decide. In an issue such as this, the market should not decide. We need careful regulation and development, and we want to ensure that everything goes the right way. 
 There have been comments about rowdiness in casinos. I am not a great casino attendee, but in those that I attended as part of the work of the Joint Committee we saw no drunkenness or rowdiness. In fact, the people playing the tables and slot machines looked decidedly miserable to me. They did not look 
 as though they were enjoying it at all; they looked like they needed a bit of cheering up. 
Mr. Don Foster (Bath) (LD) rose—

Richard Page: The hon. Gentleman is going to tell us about his rowdy experiences in the local casino.

Don Foster: No, I entirely concur with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the 131 existing casinos. However, does he not share my concern about the new breed of casino, the new super or regional casinos, in the Bill, where circumstances might be very different because of the large number of people likely to attend?

Richard Page: The hon. Gentleman has obviously seen exactly what I am going to say next, because I have a little note that says ''50–50''. He is absolutely right that, going on the experience in America, the new super-casinos—whether they are called resort or destination casinos is by the by—will take their revenue with an almost 50–50 split. Some 50 per cent. of revenue will come from gaming, and the greatest percentage of that will come from slot machines, but the other 50 per cent. will come from various leisure activities, including shows, entertainment, meals and so on. [Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) waving at me?

Tony Banks: There is an assumption in this Committee, and before it becomes received truth it should be examined, that the large casinos will somehow inevitably lead to rowdy behaviour. That problem can be dealt with by a raft of measures, and the hon. Gentleman has already said how well ordered existing casinos are. Why can we not assume that that will be extrapolated to the new casinos?

Richard Page: I have no objection to what the hon. Gentleman says. Dredging my memory banks, I do not think that I have said anything to the contrary that should make him leap to his feet. Casino staff are trained; they are not the average lad, with no training in how to deal with drunks and rowdiness, who has been asked to serve behind the bar at the Pig and Whistle for half an hour on a Saturday evening. Due to their training and numbers, casino staff are perfectly able to deal with problems if they occur, so I do not make any of the assumptions that the hon. Gentleman tries to put into my mouth.

Nick Hawkins: As I think my hon. Friend knows, I agree with several of the points that he has made. As far as a number of current casino operators and, indeed, many potential operators, are concerned, there is no danger. Does he recognise, however, that when, as in the case very close to my constituency that I mentioned, the very same person who operates all the late-night drinking venues currently causing problems also applies for the casino licence, one must consider whether the Bill will ensure that only the reputable people who will take the precautions about which my hon. Friend talks get the chance to run casinos?

Richard Page: I happen to know the string of wine bars and pubs in Guildford to which my hon. Friend refers, and I can only agree that they cause enormous trouble, particularly on Friday and Saturday evenings. A great deal of police time is occupied in trying to sort out a very young clientele who are behaving in a perfectly disgraceful fashion.
 I beg your indulgence, Mr. Pike, because I am about to move slightly away from the subject—

Peter Pike: Not too far.

Richard Page: I shall be back in 30 seconds. The answer to my hon. Friend is that the granting of a licence is not a simple process. Permission must be granted by the gambling commission and then various uses must be granted by the local authority. If I was on the local authority and I saw that the area was causing nothing but riots and chaos every Friday or Saturday night, I would be disinclined to give planning permission and the casino would not get the licence to operate anyway.
 I will now quickly return to the subject; last time, I was led astray, but I am trying to reform. This is where the role of the gambling commission is going to come in. The whole thrust of amendment No. 73 is that the development of new gambling opportunities needs to be 
''gradual and controlled to minimise the potential for social harm.''
 It is all there. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State, realising that she was being sent out to bat on a rather sticky wicket and seeing yawning chasms under her feet and all the other clichés that come to mind, did a lot of back-pedalling and made a series of quite substantial promises. The amendment is the Minister's big opportunity to put flesh on the bones of the Secretary of State's words. What are the gradual and careful developments that are necessary to ensure the minimisation of social harm? The obligation is on the Minister and I look forward to hearing what he will say.

Richard Caborn: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Pike. I think that it is the first time that I have been under your chairmanship and I shall look forward to the objectivity and sense of fair play that you are renowned for in the House.
 It was an interesting morning, which was completed by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page). We have had Victorian values, West Ham football club, fox hunting, a sortie into the north-east referendum and the inevitable letter to Mrs. Foster. I shall try to keep succinctly to the amendment paper. 
 The amendments would extend the scope of the licensing objectives. Amendment No. 1 would include preventing gambling from being a source of public nuisance. Amendment No. 71 is intended to preclude anyone with a criminal record from being a gambling operator. Amendment No. 72 would make social responsibility part of the licensing objectives. Amendment No. 36 would include the objective of preventing a link between casino gambling and excessive drinking after licensing hours. Amendment No. 37 would involve the chief constable in assessing 
 the impact of increased gambling. Amendment No. 73 would add a new licensing objective requiring the development of new gambling opportunities to be gradual and controlled. Amendment No. 80 would add to the objectives fair competition between gambling providers. 
 Amendment No. 1 would particularly affect the way in which premises licensing is carried out by local authorities. It would allow local authorities to take public nuisance considerations into account when deciding whether to grant a gambling premises licence and what conditions to apply to it, or when reviewing a licence that was already in force. The Government do not accept that that is either necessary or desirable. 
 Some gambling premises—casinos and bingo clubs—are allowed to serve alcohol to their customers, and the Bill will not stop that happening. Their entitlement does not spring from gambling laws: as one or two of my hon. Friends have said, it comes from the licensing law itself. Casinos and bingo clubs in England and Wales get their entitlement from the Licensing Act 1964. However, by the time the Bill is on the statute book, the Licensing Act 2003 will have come into force. The equivalent licensing laws govern casinos and bingo clubs in Scotland. The 2003 Act includes the prevention of public nuisance as a licensing objective, understandably so given the unfortunate connection between excess alcohol intake and bad behaviour. That was referred to by a number of hon. Members this morning. 
 The relevant risks associated with licensing of pubs, bars and other premises on which alcohol is sold include noise and antisocial conduct, particularly at night. That has been referred to in connection with Guildford. Accordingly, it will be open to licensing authorities, when considering applications for casinos and bingo halls to be licensed premises under the 2003 Act, to take account of the public-nuisance risk just as they do when considering any other application. If any casino were to put its alcohol licence at risk by allowing public nuisance, it would almost certainly put its continued existence and its licence at risk. Therefore, it is unnecessary in the case of casinos and bingo clubs to duplicate provisions that are already in licensing law. 
 There is no intention of allowing other gambling premises, such as betting shops and machine arcades, to sell alcohol, and there is no reason to apply to them a nuisance test over and above the law on noise and other nuisance. There is no well established association between betting and nuisance of the sort that unfortunately exists between alcohol and nuisance. We do not believe that there is any reason to single out betting shops for special treatment in contrast to grocery shops, newsagents or any other shop. 
 There are provisions in the general criminal and civil law on the control of public nuisance. If they are not thought to be adequate—I am not expressing a Government view on this—the solution is to strengthen the general law, not to adopt specific measures for gambling premises on the basis of no 
 evidence of need. In practice, all licensed gambling premises are more likely to conduct themselves responsibly than the general run of premises, if only because they will have to satisfy not just the local licensing authority concerning their present licence, but the powerful gambling commission in relation to their operating licence. 
 Amendment No. 1 would be regulatory overkill. The official Opposition, who continually badger us about red tape and over-regulation, should reflect on their amendments in the light of my explanation. Amendment No. 1 would only reinforce the apprehension in the gambling industry that local authorities will be over-zealous in regulating premises, and I do not believe that those fears are well grounded. It would impact significantly on the matters that could be taken into account by local authorities and would go beyond what is reasonable. I cannot advise the Committee to accept it. 
 Amendment No. 71 is also unnecessary and heavy handed. It is unnecessary because clause 66 already provides for the gambling commission, having regard to the licensing objectives, to be able to refuse an application for an operating licence on the grounds that the applicant is unsuitable. One of those objectives is the prevention of crime in connection with gambling. Further, clause 67 provides for the commission to be able to refuse an application solely on the grounds that he or she has been convicted for a relevant offence, as listed in schedule 6, even though the applicant might otherwise be suitable. The offences are either intrinsically serious or directly relevant to the conduct of gambling.

Bob Russell: I wonder whether we could have it on the record that when we refer to a criminal record we mean as a result of a conviction anywhere in the world and not just in the United Kingdom.

Richard Caborn: I believe that to be so. If it is not, I will write to the hon. Gentleman. The offences concerned are those in schedule 6.
 The provisions do all that we believe is necessary to keep gambling crime-free—a desire that has again been stressed clearly this morning and this afternoon. Amendment No. 71 is over the top and would appear to exclude from employment in the gambling industry anyone who has a criminal conviction for any offence whatever that is not yet spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. If the brother of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire had a conviction for speeding or dropping litter, the amendment would prevent him from setting up as a bookmaker or bingo club proprietor. One has only to state such a consequence to see how disproportionate and ridiculous that would be. There are ample powers in the Bill to prevent criminals from joining the industry, and the amendment would not add anything useful to them. 
 I have no quarrel with amendment No. 72, and what I take to be the intention behind it. We all want gambling to be provided in a socially responsible way, and the Bill marks a giant step forward in that direction. The present law does not recognise social 
 responsibility as a function of gambling regulation, which is why the Gaming Board has to rely on voluntary codes of practice agreed with trade associations as a way of hoping to prevent mischief such as excessive play. I am, however, reluctant to write into the licensing objectives the words in the amendment. We may all have a general idea of what constitutes social responsibility, but I am far from sure that it is a definitive enough concept to stand as a licensing objective in its own right. 
 In the context of gambling regulation, previous calls for the industry to act in a socially responsible way have been calls to take proper measures to prevent their customers from gambling excessively, and to ensure that children and adults with potential or actual gambling problems are kept away from opportunities to gamble. That is exactly the area covered by the third licensing objective, which is set out in paragraph (c). If, as the amendment seeks, social responsibility were added to paragraph (b), it must mean something different from protection of children and the vulnerable. What could that different thing be? Some might argue that it was socially responsible to prevent any advertising of gambling, whereas others would strenuously disagree. 
 The intention behind the amendment is praiseworthy, but I fear that it would infect the Bill with uncertainty and vagueness from the outset. I reassure the Committee that the Bill as drafted will through licence conditions give the gambling commission and licensing authorities all the powers that they reasonably need to ensure that operators act with social responsibility. I cannot therefore advise the Committee to accept an amendment that converts social responsibility into a licensing objective of its own. It is an umbrella concept that includes fairness and protection of children and the vulnerable. 
 Amendment No. 36 is aimed at ensuring that casino gambling in town and city centres is not associated with excessive drinking. I am unsure why the Opposition think that excessive drinking is all right in places other than town and city centres, but I will let that pass.

Nick Hawkins: I would like to make it abundantly clear that I do not regard excessive drinking as acceptable anywhere. I think that my speech made that clear, and the Minister knows it perfectly well.

Richard Caborn: Yes, I think that that is true; it was just an error of drafting, and I concede that point. The main point is that casinos are licensed to sell alcohol under licensing law, not under this legislation. They cannot lawfully serve alcohol outside the hours during which they are licensed to sell it. The amendment sets up an imaginary problem that does not need to be solved. The powers in the Bill enable us to deal with casinos that allow excessive drinking to an extent that results in disorder. That is also the case if casinos allowed customers to gamble when drunk—that would certainly violate their social responsibility requirements to protect the vulnerable—so the amendment is unnecessary. It is a criminal act to sell alcohol to someone who is drunk.
 I agree with the thinking behind amendment No. 73. In developing the policy expressed in the Bill, we have from the outset stressed that any relaxation of regulatory controls must be cautious, controlled and carefully monitored. The Budd report drew clear attention to the problems that had been experienced in places such as Australia. 
 I had the opportunity to go to Australia to see how it had dealt with deregulation. Many people in Australia wish that they could draw back from that deregulation, because it has created some real problems. The visit was a sobering experience, which had quite an effect on my thinking as I returned to deal with the Budd report and ''A Safe Bet for Success''. It is probably the worst example anywhere in the world of deregulation and the effect of the market on gambling. We must learn from that. Indeed, much of the Bill has been conditioned by the experience of Australia. That is why I think that when the Bill comes out of Committee it will be good legislation. 
 Where there has been over-aggressive deregulation and where it was proving difficult to rein back and deal with the social and public health problems, we have always taken the lesson to heart. The Bill provides a flexible framework of regulation. We propose to loosen the tap a little in certain areas, but we have made it clear that we are equally ready to tighten it again if that is necessary. Indeed, we could tighten the tap using measures in the Bill. That will be done if evidence of harm begins to emerge. 
 It is one thing to state that as a general policy approach; it is another to try to write it in to the Bill as a specific licensing objective in clause 1. The licensing objectives of clause 1 are not there for show but to do useful work. They will determine what the gambling commission does when considering applications for operating licences and in setting conditions for those licences. They will do the same for premise licences issued by a local authority. All those applications must be dealt with fairly and on their individual merits. If a local licensing authority had to have regard to an extra licensing objective of the kind proposed, what the authority could, or indeed should, do would be obscure. 
 As a statement of the general approach that the Government and the regulator should take in exercising their powers—whether to lay statutory instruments or impose licence conditions—I am happy to agree with the intention behind the amendment. However, we do not need a new objective. We have the powers that we need to achieve what the amendment seeks. 
 We are in favour of fair competition, but there is no need to add a fourth licensing objective in the guise of amendment No. 80. I leave aside any quibbles about what is referred to as ''those associated with gambling''. The key point is that the gambling business, like any other business, is and will remain subject to general competition law. It is the job of competition law and the competition authorities established under law—the Competition Commission and the Office of Fair Trading—to pursue the objective of regulation. That is not properly the task of the gambling commission. If we were to ask the 
 commission to take that task on, it would significantly add to its costs and create duplication and conflict with the Office of Fair Trading. I cannot believe that the Committee wants that. Therefore, I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.

Malcolm Moss: The purpose of the amendment and the way in which I presented it were aimed at overcoming the problem whereby only certain categories of casino—the regional casinos—will have access to category A machines. That means that the existing industry will not have access to those machines in their existing casinos. Is that not like granting planning permission for a brand new supermarket chain to compete with existing supermarkets in every location in the country, and giving them special treatment concerning the goods that they can sell over the counter?

Richard Caborn: That may be the case, but we believe that we are taking the right approach. There is no doubt that there are differences between the types of casino. That is why we have the categories of regional casino, large casino and small casino. There are differences between casinos and the hon. Gentleman refers to one of them. I do not believe that that judgment is in conflict with competition law and I am advised that it is not. If the judgment were against competition law and people were aggrieved, they would have the right to take the matter to the OFT or the Competition Commission.
 This morning we were told that there would be no clause stand part debate because the debate would be wide-ranging. So, I conclude by saying that clause 1 is the cornerstone of the Bill. It sets out the objectives of gambling regulation and, therefore, sets the framework in which the gambling commission as the regulator for gambling operators and the local licensing authorities as the regulator for gambling premises should carry out their responsibilities. So it is an important part of the Bill. 
 There are three objectives and we need to focus on them, because some of the publicity about the Bill and the debate has missed that. The objectives are keeping crime out of gambling, ensuring fairness and, importantly, protecting children and the vulnerable. All are necessary and all have equal weight in the Bill—as they will, hopefully, when it becomes an Act. Together, they will ensure that gambling is carried out in a socially responsible way. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham asked the interesting question: why the Gaming Act 1968? If one looks back, one finds that that Act, introduced by the then Labour Government, was designed to remove crime and money laundering from our society. It was a very specific and prescriptive Act. The Budd report, the White Paper, entitled ''A Safe Bet for Success'', and the Bill all reflect the need to come to terms with the new electronic age and the somewhat outdated 1968 Act. It is interesting to see what has happened since 1968, and we are absolutely determined to ensure that the underlying principles of the Act are translated into this Bill by making sure that gambling is crime-free. 
 The objectives proposed by the independent gambling review, chaired very ably by Sir Alan Budd, commanded general support, and we have carried them through into the Bill. I hope that with that explanation right hon. and hon. Members who are signatories to the amendments will withdraw them and not force them to a vote.

Don Foster: May I say how delighted I am to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Pike? You have experienced many Committees over many years, and you will not be surprised to see yet again the normal procedure of Committees unfolding, whereby the Opposition parties put forward suggestions to improve the Bill and the Government oppose them so that there is a strange changeover of our roles elsewhere. It is disappointing to hear the Minister agree with nearly everything in the amendments under discussion, while urging the Committee not to accept them.
 The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire will be particularly disappointed by the Minister's response, because he was telling us only a few minutes ago that if we agreed to amendment No. 73, we could pack up and go home. It is clear that the programme motion will still be in force for some time, given that the Minister was unprepared to accept that amendment, although we all note with great pleasure that the Minister agreed with the thinking behind it and with the approach described. We therefore look forward with some anticipation to the debates on clause 7, when the Minister will describe in more detail how he sees us moving forward in the spirit of amendment No. 73. 
 Many of us would entirely agree with the Minister's remarks about the 1968 Act and the importance of retaining the principles on which it was based; namely, to ensure that crime is kept out of gambling. I therefore hope that when we come to deliberate on that issue and, in particular, the need to place in the Bill a provision requiring a form of identification to be presented on entry to a casino, he will be supportive of those proposals. 
 I want to comment on the Minister's response to amendment No. 1, which I moved. I wanted to include the avoidance of public nuisance in the Bill's objectives, but the Minister said that it was neither necessary nor desirable. He said that it was not necessary because the main cause of any public nuisance would be alcohol-related activities within casinos which are covered by the Licensing Act 2003. He absolutely assured us—although, based on that Act's track record, not totally convincingly—that it will be in force by the time this Bill is in force. The Minister smiles at that. He knows that the Act has not had a particularly good track record on implementation.

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman is being a little mischievous. He knows that the first allotted day has been assigned and that the timetable is enshrined in the Act. It will become fully operational roughly this time next year.

Don Foster: The Minister remains cheerfully optimistic. He will be well aware that only a few
 days ago he submitted for consultation the new fee structure. A storm of protest has already fallen on him and his Department about that. There may be a need to rethink things, certainly in regard to that.
 The Minister made the point that it is only the alcohol-related activities in casinos that could give rise to public nuisance. Of course, he is wrong. We have many examples of public nuisance being caused by non-alcohol-related activities. One has only to look at the problems associated with fast food and takeaway shops, taxi ranks and cab offices, to know that what he says does not give us the whole picture. 
 The Minister also said that the amendment was not desirable. He said that it would be regulatory overkill. He is entitled to his view. However, I was disappointed to hear him go a step further and not only talk about regulatory overkill, but suggest that the amendment would enable local authorities to go beyond what it is reasonable for them to take into account. I suspect that local authorities may be particularly disappointed by that remark and by the fact that they would not be allowed, on behalf of the communities that they serve, to take public nuisance into account in respect of a gambling premises licence, but could do so only in respect of the alcohol-related activities in the casino. 
 That said, I would like the opportunity to reflect on the Minister's contribution, to consider some of his words and to have some further discussion with the Local Government Association before deciding what further action it might be necessary to take. To give me that opportunity, and to give the Minister the opportunity to reflect on his own words, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 36, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert— 
 '(d) ensuring that there is no link between excessive drinking after licensing hours and casino gambling in city or town centres.'.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 12.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 37, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert— 
 '(d) ensuring that the views of the Chief Constable for any police area determine the appropriateness of any increase in gambling provision in that area.'.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 15.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Licensing authorities

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 74, in
clause 2, page 1, line 17, after 'councils', insert— 
 '(iia) a unitary council.'.
 May I welcome you, Mr. Pike, to the Chair? This is my first time under your chairmanship on a major Bill. I have served under your chairmanship before, on delegated legislation, and it is a pleasure to do so again. 
 It is always interesting at the start of a new Bill Committee to see how the nuances of the debate play out, how the Minister plays his hand and how Members interpret what he says. There were moments in the Minister's last response when I thought that I had scored three bull's-eyes with my amendments. He said that they were agreeable, that they were worded perfectly, that they fitted the Bill and that they went to the heart of the Government's objectives, but they are rubbish and in the bin. I now know where he is coming from.

Nick Hawkins: I do not think that my hon. Friend's amendments are rubbish and in the bin. I rather suspect that the Minister's wise words acknowledging their value simply pave the way for the enforced retreat that the Government know that they will have to make under pressure from Labour peers in another place.

Malcolm Moss: That may or may not be so.
 It is my pleasure to speak to amendment No. 74, which is a simple amendment. The Minister probably has an equally pleasurable way of saying that it is not necessary. In looking down the list of councils in the clause, I noted that unitary councils were not included. Of course, that may be another oversight by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, or unitary councils may well be covered by some other clause at the back of the Bill. I wait to see what the Minister has to say about it.

Richard Caborn: I shall get in my usual courtesies to the hon. Gentleman and try to be as helpful as always, but I shall resist the amendment. It would introduce a reference to a unitary authority where one is not necessary. At a basic level, ''unitary authority'' describes an authority that exercises all the principal
 local government functions for its area. A county council to which the functions of a district council have been transferred is therefore a unitary authority. Unitary authorities are already covered by clause 2, so I cannot advise the Committee to accept the amendment, and I ask that it be withdrawn.

Nick Hawkins: I suspect that I am not alone in being slightly puzzled by the words that the Minister just read out. They sounded like the kind of thing that Sir Humphrey might have said in ''Yes Minister''. There may well need to be some further explanation. The amendment brings forward wider issues. I mention that now in case the debate is extended, although I may have the opportunity to talk on stand part.
 One reason for inserting ''unitary council'', in addition to the avoidance of doubt in the light of what the Minister has just said, is to make it absolutely clear that the principal decisions will always be made by the authority closest to the people. I am very concerned indeed—this came up briefly during the exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire this morning—about the way in which the Government are continuing to pursue their agenda of pushing as much decision making as possible from local people to regional level. 
 I have already referred to the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister's plans were severely derailed by the massive and sensible vote by the people of the north-east last week, but it is crucial to ensure that everyone knows that vital decisions on these issues will be taken by the level of government closest to the people who elect that government. I tabled an amendment, which was not selected but may be able to be covered in a stand part debate, seeking to state in this part of the Bill, for the avoidance of doubt, that no such decisions should be taken at regional level. That is not germane to the amendment before us and I would stray out of order if I talked too much about that, but it would be helpful not only if the amendment were accepted, for the avoidance of doubt, but if we made it absolutely clear to those who send us here—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason that the Minister is resisting the amendment is that the vote in the north-east was not only against the north-east regional assembly, but against unitary authorities? Perhaps the Government are cooling on the idea of unitary authorities. While my hon. Friend is responding to that point, perhaps he would also comment on the fact that there are no such things as metropolitan boroughs in the list of councils.

Nick Hawkins: I do not know the answer to my hon. Friend's second question and no doubt the Minister can deal with that when he responds, but I heard my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire raising the same query sotto voce.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold may be right about his first point—I do not know—but it is important that those who follow our proceedings with great care know that we as an all-party Committee have tried to ensure that the local authority closest to those people will make the crucial decisions. In 
 another debate—perhaps on stand part—we shall return to the role, or otherwise, of regional decision making, but I wanted to place my concern on the record at this stage.

Don Foster: Purely for the avoidance of doubt, I would like to ask the Minister to assure me that my local authority, Bath and North East Somerset council, will be a licensing authority. It is in neither Wales nor Scotland, so it is not covered by paragraphs (b) or (c). It is not a council of the Isles of Scilly. It is not a common council of the City of London. It is not a London borough council and it is not a district council. As I understand the Minister's definition, Bath and North East Somerset council has suddenly become a county council for a county—not that I knew we had one—in which there are no district councils. It is certainly not a county and, to my knowledge, to this day it has never been known as a county council.
Several hon. Members rose—

Don Foster: I am in difficulty, but I give way to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones).

Kevan Jones: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Newcastle city council is not a district council, but a metropolitan borough council. North Tyneside and Gateshead councils were in existence before the Conservatives did away with Tyne and Wear county council. Does he agree that Newcastle city council is not covered?

Don Foster: The honest answer is that I have not the foggiest notion, because of the gobbledegook that came from the Minister. I hope that he will get up and, instead of just reading his brief, explain the position in common language that we can all understand. I want to know how Bath and North East Somerset council has become a county council for a county.

Richard Page: The answer is remarkably simple. Unitary authorities will not be able to have licensed casinos, and nor will metropolitan ones. That is the Government's way of limiting the number of casinos around the country. It is relatively simple, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not spotted it.

Don Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but we are all now desperate to hear from the Minister, so I shall resume my seat.

Bob Russell: What about Sheffield?

Richard Caborn: Sheffield is okay; I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that.
 Several questions have been asked about the role of the various councils. I have asked my officials to check with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. [Interruption.] It is not the ODPM's fault. I wish the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) would wait. He argues that there has been no dialogue, and now I am supposed to have accused another Department. 
 There are some concerns. We shall get the absolute definitions, and I shall bring them back to the Committee. I shall ask the ODPM to make clear exactly what they are. As I understand it, the definitions have been taken broadly from the Licensing Act 2003. I shall check it and respond to 
 the hon. Gentleman's concerns and questions at the earliest opportunity.

Don Foster: Regardless of whether the wording is correct, will the Minister assure us that it is his intention that unitary authorities such as Bath and North East Somerset council, Newcastle city council and others like them would be considered licensing authorities under the Bill?

Richard Caborn: The answer to that is yes. In trying to evolve local authorities' ability to be the driving force for regeneration of their economies, we are increasingly putting powers into their hands, whether that is to do with gambling or licensing, so that they are not reactive, but can become proactive. That is the Government's clear position. We are trying to work with authorities in respect of licensing on liquor and gambling and in other areas where levers can be pulled to move forward the economies of the local authorities. The rationale for that is to put them together and to bring them as near to the point of action as possible.

Don Foster: So the answer was yes.

Richard Caborn: With a good explanation.

Malcolm Moss: We have learned a second lesson in record time this afternoon. When the Minister gives a gabbled response that no one can understand, it means we are on to something, and I think that we are on to something here. It would be helpful if the Minister checked with the ODPM, which has landed him in the proverbial, that we had the appropriate list of licensing authorities.
 There is a difference between the licensing functions of various councils and the planning functions, which also come into an assessment of where casinos and gambling institutions are to go. I cannot see how unitary councils are covered, but if there is an assurance from the ODPM that they are, and the definition of a county council for a county in which there are no district councils covers it, fair enough. A valid point was made. 
 In the interests of clarity, why do we not use the term ''unitary council'', which everyone understands? It is understood in the minds of the general public, who would not understand what a county council for a county in which there are no district councils actually means. I am making a plea for simplicity. If we mean ''unitary'', let us include that in the Bill. If there is a gap in relation to the metropolitan boroughs, they should also be included. They are certainly not district councils in my view. Following the Minister's assurance that he will return with the appropriate definitions, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: I take the opportunity to thank the Minister for what he said, because I spoke before his response. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire that we have learned the
 valuable lesson that, whenever the Minister reads out an official brief very fast, we can assume that we are on to something and keep pressing the matter. The Minister's comment that he will return to us with a definition was helpful.
 Under clause stand part, I can refer in more detail to my concerns about the regional aspect of the issue. I know that it will, to some extent, be dealt with by a later part of the Bill but it is relevant here, because there is a danger of confusion in the scheme that the Government have put forward, which is unnecessarily complex. The best body to decide whether there should be a casino and its related developments in a particular area is the local authority. That issue is covered by the licensing authorities clause—clause 2. 
 There is also the spectre of regional bodies deciding where in the region the casino might be appropriate. Only after that will the more local local authority, if I may put it like that, consider the proposal in relation to licensing. The scrutiny Committee and, in particular on Second Reading, its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), whose work on the Bill has been widely recognised on all sides, made the point that it would be more sensible if Parliament took a national decision about what is appropriate. Many people on the Opposition Benches, and on the Government Back Benches, who are less in favour of liberalisation than I am, also believe that it is the responsibility of Parliament to decide on issues such as the one that we are talking about. 
 I remember vividly that, on Second Reading last Monday evening, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), a widely respected Member, whose view of the legislation is different from mine, said that Parliament ought to decide that there should be just one new casino—a pilot one. He said that he would be perfectly happy for it to be in Blackpool. Whichever view one takes on whether there should be one, four, six or any number of new casinos, surely that decision could be taken nationally, with the subsequent licensing decisions taken by the most local councils as set out in clause 2. 
 What worries me is that the Government and, in particular, the Deputy Prime Minister and his closest allies, including the Minister, want to use the Bill as a mechanism for giving more power to regional bodies. We know why they want to do that. They have always wanted to turn the UK into a place divided into regions, fitting in with the European Union's regional agenda. That is in the face of huge public hostility such as we saw in the north-east, where they tried out the regional referendum because they thought that it was their best chance of getting it through. We know from last week's vote that, if that was their best chance, they have no chance in the rest of the country. That is what they are up to. Anyone who does not realise that has not read the Deputy Prime Minister's speeches of the 10 ten years. 
Mr. Banks rose—

Peter Pike: Order. Before I call Mr. Banks, I note that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) is straying from what is in the clause. There is no mention of regions. We are discussing
 licensing authorities. However, he has given way to Mr. Banks, so I call him. Let us make sure that we stick to what we are debating.

Tony Banks: I had better not get up then.

Nick Hawkins: I accept your ruling, Mr. Pike. Perhaps I can return to the Government, the Deputy Minister and the Minister's real agenda later. I will certainly give way to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), because I agreed with much of what she said on Second Reading.

Joan Humble: Who am I to say that there should not be one pilot and that it should not be in Blackpool? However, other people might disagree with that.
 I remind the hon. Gentleman of the point that I made on Second Reading, which was about the need for transparency. If the Government are going to give directions and say ''There, there and perhaps there'', the Bill could be open to all sorts of challenges and people could reasonably ask, ''Why?'' Will he therefore consider a national framework and the setting of some rules within which the Government can properly operate, so that the local authorities that are interested in the proposals would have some idea of how to bid or to compete?

Nick Hawkins: That is a helpful intervention. I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of transparency, but for that argument to be valid it does not matter who is making the decision. As I am sure she realises, with the huge amounts of money behind some of the overseas companies, even if the Government were to get their wish—I do not think that they will—and the decisions were to be made regionally, there would still be challenges through the courts. Many of those huge, international conglomerates have literally got money to burn if they wish, and they can keep challenging the transparency of those decisions if they are made regionally. There would be a greater guarantee of transparency if Parliament and the Government made the decisions.
 As the hon. Lady knows, I was not adopting the argument of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, saying that there should be only one pilot, in Blackpool; I would prefer to liberalise more. I want to ensure that after the Bill is implemented we see regenerative effects in the rundown resorts, including Blackpool. There is very little between her views and mine, but I hope that she understands that her transparency argument, which is a good one, could apply at any level. I want the main decisions to be made in the Bill and the local decision making made by the councils most local to the people. It would be a defensible system. 
 Not wishing to infringe on your ruling, Mr. Pike, and knowing that we will return to that issue, I just wanted to make the point on stand part that I would have liked to see in this clause a statement that for the avoidance of doubt, as we are putting in unitary 
 authorities, none of those decisions will be taken regionally. I have made the points that I needed to make, which were important to get on the record.

Richard Caborn: I will clear up the misunderstanding about the authorities. The clause will define the authorities that have a responsibility for licensing gambling premises and carrying out other associated regulatory functions under the Bill. In England and Wales, they will be the same authorities as those carrying out functions under a parallel provision in the Licensing Act 2003. In Scotland, the authorities will be those licensing bodies that already have responsibility for regulating gambling and the supply of alcohol.
 Under the Bill, the authorities will take over all functions undertaken in England and Wales by licensing justices, magistrates, and in Scotland by the licensing board and the local authority. Bearing it in mind that casinos and many bingo clubs also serve alcohol, and that many pubs, clubs and other premises licensed to sell alcohol also have gaming machines, it makes sense to ask the same local authorities to run both systems. 
 The systems will be different, because apart from anything else the licensing objectives are not identical, but there is clearly a lot of common ground and scope for coherence of approach and efficiency of administration. The approach proposed in the clause will also inject an element of democratic local accountability, which is lacking. 
 We are confident that the local authorities identified in the clause are the right bodies to license gambling premises, issue permits and carry out the other essentially local regulatory responsibilities for which the Bill provides. We are working closely with the authorities to ensure that they are ready and prepared to take on those responsibilities when the Bill is brought fully into force.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister talks of discussions with the local authorities to ensure that they are ready. I remember that when we were debating the Licensing Bill, assurances were given by the then Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting that the local authorities were being brought on board and knew exactly what was going on. We have just heard about the fees structure and, as was pointed out earlier, many authorities are up in arms about the fees under the Licensing Act 2003. Will the Minister assure us that this time his Department and the local authorities will get their act together, so that the appropriate grant money will be made available to allow the authorities to do their job properly?

Richard Caborn: I do not want to wander too much into the Licensing Act or, indeed, the level of licensing. We have said absolutely consistently that the fees will be cost-effective, and we believe that they are. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Secretary of State put a safety valve in the system. We said that the National Audit Office will review the fees and that we would rectify them upwards or downwards if they were wrong. This debate is taking place against a background in which we have consulted widely on the fees, and the Local Government Association and the Local Authorities
 Coordinating Body on Food and Trading Standards have made submissions.

John Whittingdale: I wished to intervene on the Minister. He has sat down, but perhaps I could just make one small observation. The Minister said very clearly that the slight inconsistency that we have identified in respect of responsibility in metropolitan district council areas matches the provisions in the Licensing Act. We have obtained a copy of that Act, and he is entirely wrong. The list of authorities in the Licensing Act is exactly the same as the list of authorities in the Bill. However, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which lists the authorities that may give advice to a regional planning body, has a list that includes a county council, a district council for an area for which there is no county council—the two categories that are included in the Bill—and a third category of metropolitan district council. In other words, a metropolitan district council is not the same as a county council or a district council for an area for which there is no county council. It appears that it is not only the Gambling Bill that is deficient. Perhaps the Licensing Act is also deficient and half the country is not covered by it.

Malcolm Moss: I point out to my hon. Friend that in fact the Act is entirely different. The Bill refers to
''a county council for a county in which there are no district councils'',
 I thought that he read ''a district council for which there are no county councils'' from the 2004 Act, which is the opposite.

John Whittingdale: The wording in the Licensing Act is slightly different. It refers to
''the council of a county in England in which there are no district councils'',
 which we can probably take to be the same as a county council in which there are no district councils.

Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire is on to a very good point. The wording in the Licensing Act is much clearer than the wording in the Bill. If the Bill said, ''a council for a county in which there are no districts'', it would be much clearer. The Minister and his officials have lifted and edited the words incorrectly, but no doubt we will get a clearer definition when the Minister has done his checking with his colleague at the ODPM.
Mr. Banks rose—

John Whittingdale: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he can cast light on the matter.

Peter Pike: Let the hon. Gentleman respond to the point that has been raised before he gives way again.

John Whittingdale: In answer to my hon. Friend, he has made it even clearer that complete confusion reigns over the three pieces of legislation.

Richard Caborn: Before the hon. Gentleman, who has gone through all this like Sherlock Holmes, gets too
 excited, let me just say, fine, I hear what he says. Mistakes may have been made, or we may be right—I do not know, as I did not take the legislation through the House—but obviously both your side and this side missed it. I do not think that it is anything to get excited about. It is not a major political score.
 We will rectify any mistake. I will come back to the Committee and explain who has responsibility for liquor licensing and gambling. The hon. Gentleman should not get over-excited, as I shall come back with a rational answer for him.

Peter Pike: Just to confuse matters further, the Minister said ''your side'', but I do not have any side.

John Whittingdale: I promise that I shall remain entirely calm about the matter. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire has said in my ear, the so-called triple lock is undermined if we discover that large parts of the country are not covered by the Bill at all. We shall look forward with considerable interest to the Minister's explanation of the apparent contradiction.

Tony Banks: I do not want to intrude in this terrible mess. However, because it pays to do so in politics, I just want to point out that the mess of local authorities is entirely the responsibility of successive Conservative Governments.

John Whittingdale: Had we introduced yet another layer in the form of regional assemblies, it would have been an even greater mess. Happily, that has not happened.

Tony Banks: At least the Labour Government were prepared to consult. The proposals were rejected, but we consulted, which is far more than the Conservative Government under Margaret Thatcher were prepared to do when the abolition of the—

Peter Pike: Order. We are getting wide of clause 2.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I shed a little more light on the problem? I served on the Standing Committee considering the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill and you were in the Chair, Mr. Pike, so you will remember clearly that we spent almost a whole sitting debating an amendment, very similar to that tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, on unitary authorities. Eventually, the Committee was convinced that unitary authorities were covered by the definition in the Bill. However, we carefully probed the idea that metropolitan authorities were very different from district councils. The Minister's Department needs to look carefully to see whether his definitions are consistent with those of the ODPM. I think that he may find that they are not.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Gambling

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 81, in
clause 3, page 2, line 7, after '9', insert 'and section 11'.
 This is a probing amendment. We seek clarification from the Minister. Paragraph (b) says in brackets, after ''betting'', 
''within the meaning of section 9''.
 Our amendment would insert ''and section 11''. It is uncertain whether section 11 has been left out because it relates to prize competitions. It would appear that prize competitions are also subject to the Bill and we believe that a specific reference should be made to avoid any doubt or confusion.

Richard Caborn: Clause 3 gives a general definition of the concept of gambling as meaning gambling, betting and lotteries. Betting itself is defined in clause 9. The amendment is a probing one, but we are not clear why the hon. Gentleman thinks it necessary to add a reference to clause 11. That clause makes it abundantly clear that prize contributions that satisfy the conditions set out in it thereby constitute betting for the purposes of clause 9. Betting of the kind defined in clause 11 is not a different and separate kind of betting from that described in clause 9; it is clause 9 betting. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that and will take it as an explanation in response to his amendment. We resist his amendment and ask him to withdraw it.

Malcolm Moss: I have to be honest and say that I did not really understand that. If I am being entirely truthful, there were so many nines and 11s that I was confused about where we ended up. On this occasion, however, I am prepared to take the Minister's assurance. We still have a chance to return to this point when we discuss clauses 9 and 11. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Richard Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in
clause 3, page 2, line 8, leave out 'entering' and insert 'participating in'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 14 to 17, 23 and 24.

Richard Caborn: These are technical drafting amendments. Their purpose is pretty straightforward: it is to introduce clear and consistent language into the clauses that refer to participation in a lottery. The amendments do not serve to change the substance or meaning of the clauses; nor do they introduce any new policy into the Bill. Amendment No. 12 makes it clear that the clause applies only to competitions where all participants are required to guess or predict the answer.
 Amendment agreed to.

Richard Caborn: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in
clause 3, page 2, line 8, at end insert 
 'and subject to section [national lottery]).'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government amendments Nos. 28 to 34. 
 Government new clause 3—National Lottery. 
 Government new schedule 1—Amendment of National Lottery etc. Act 1993 (c.39).

Richard Caborn: The nature of the national lottery is that money raised for good causes is clearly different from other forms of gambling. The Bill should therefore treat the national lottery separately from the rest of gambling. The national lottery has its own legislation, and any fundamental changes to it are best made through national lottery legislation. However, certain aspects of the Bill should apply to the national lottery. First, it would clearly be inconsistent for any individual who cheats at the national lottery to be treated differently from someone who cheats at gambling. Government new clause 3 makes cheating at the national lottery an offence, punishable to the same extent as someone cheating at any other form of gambling.
 Additionally, the provisions relating to the enforceability of contracts should also apply to the national lottery. Those who operate or play the national lottery should have the same assurance that they will receive what they are owed as those entering into any other form of gambling contract. 
 It is right that the national lottery and the rest of gambling have separate regulators, but that does not mean that they should operate in a vacuum. The Government believe that the gambling commission and the National Lottery Commission should be in regular contact with each other about issues that affect them both. The Bill already attaches a duty for the gambling commission to consult the National Lottery Commission when it becomes aware of a matter in which the National Lottery Commission may have an interest. It also adds a power for the Secretary of State to enforce that.

Julie Kirkbride: Will the Minister clarify for the Committee an issue that arose a few months ago? I believe that a young man in some sort of young offenders institution or even prison won a very large payout on the national lottery. The Secretary of State, as she is wont to do when the newspapers get on to an issue, demanded that action be taken and that such people should be deprived of their benefits from the national lottery. Does the Minister intend to do that?

Richard Caborn: I do not know the exact details of the case, so it would be wrong of me to respond today, but I will consider the matter and write to the hon. Lady.

Bob Russell: I want to ask the Minister a sub-editing question. We have just had a vote on deleting the word ''entering'' and replacing it with ''participating in'', yet the phraseology in new clause 3 is ''entering'' each time. Should it be ''participating in'' or ''entering''?

Richard Caborn: I shall finish the rest of my explanation. My officials will give me an answer to the hon. Gentleman's point, which I will give to him when I sit down.
 Paragraph 1 to the new schedule adds the same requirements to the National Lottery Commission. For the first time, the Bill provides a definition of a lottery. The national lottery is the biggest lottery in the country, so it is entirely correct that the definition 
 should also apply to it. Paragraph 2 to the new schedule would achieve that. 
 Government amendment No. 33 repeals section 2 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. That is consequential on the repeal of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976, which the Bill replaces. None of the provisions will extend to Northern Ireland. The amendment therefore simply prevents the repeal of section 2 in Northern Ireland.

Nick Hawkins: I want to raise a couple of issues and make a couple of comments. I was interested in what the Minister said about people who might defraud the national lottery. I entirely understand what he is getting at, but the thought immediately came to mind that that is a bit rich coming from a Government who in opposition said during the passage of the National Lottery etc. Bill that lottery money should never be used for purposes that should really be funded by the taxpayer. Since they have been in government, they have hijacked a large proportion of what should have gone to good causes and directed it to purposes connected with health and education—which should be taxpayer funded. The biggest defrauding of the national lottery has been carried out by the Government.
 Nevertheless, I know that that is not what the Minister is aiming at in the provisions that we are considering. I am surprised to hear him say that he does not remember the case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) referred. I accept his word that he does not, and I do not expect him to be able to answer off the top of his head, but I am surprised, because it received huge publicity not only at the time but regularly ever afterwards. The person concerned has wasted all his money and been involved in breaches of the law following his release from the institution, which has received further coverage. 
 When I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department of National Heritage before 1997, Ministers were provided with a news cutting service, so that every story that related to the Department's work—particularly something as potentially controversial as lottery winners—was automatically given to Ministers. Perhaps only the Secretary of State sees those things now, or perhaps it is only the Under-Secretary in the House of Lords. 
 I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove said; I think that it sticks in the craw of law-abiding people, who pay their pound, their standing order of £16 or whatever to compete in the lottery for a week or eight weeks at a time, when large wins are handed over to criminals. That undermines the purpose of the lottery. The Minister says that the Bill is not the right provision in which to do something about that, and that any changes should be made by amending national lottery legislation, but the fact remains that the Bill deals with aspects of the national lottery.

Julie Kirkbride: I am sure that my hon. Friend clearly remembers that many of our national
 newspapers were in full flight on the issue and Ministers, including the Secretary of State, were very keen to suggest that the fault lay in the drafting of the original Act by a previous Conservative Government. Now that the moment has arrived to tackle the matter, the whole thing has been forgotten.

Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend is right. Time after time, not only in matters that are the province of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but across the Government, Ministers are always in favour of the knee-jerk response that gets the eye-catching headline: ''Of course we will do something.'' However, faced with the acid test of a real opportunity—which the Bill provides, as my hon. Friend points out—they duck it. They think that the press agenda has moved on. My hon. Friend, as a distinguished former journalist, knows how the media caravan moves on. The story is no longer the focus of attention. I hope, however, that now that my hon. Friend has raised the matter, she will be able to alert some of her friends in the media about yet another broken promise, and yet another occasion when the Government have proved to be all talk but no action.

Tony Banks: I remember the case particularly well; the thing that annoyed me most was that I had not won that amount of money on the lottery. I do not understand; the guy did not steal the lottery ticket. I assume that he paid his pound. I do not understand why people who might find themselves detained at Her Majesty's pleasure should be precluded from joining in the lottery, if they want to pay their pound. What is the problem?

Peter Pike: Order. That intervention was very helpful to me; I was just thinking that the point that is being debated is not relevant to the offences under discussion. I hope that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath will bring his remarks speedily to a close.

Nick Hawkins: I shall of course abide by your ruling, Mr. Pike, but my hon. Friend's intervention, which gave rise to this short passage of the debate, was relevant, because the fact that the Government amendments and the new clause and schedule deal with one category of offences in relation to the lottery means that the Government could have used the opportunity to deal with some other issues had they chosen to do so. My answer to the hon. Member for West Ham, to finish the point, is that I think that most law-abiding citizens think that those in prison should not be allowed to buy lottery tickets. If we had a referendum, I suspect that the votes would be on my side, but we shall leave that for another day.
 There is an opportunity to raise one other serious point about the new clause and new schedule that I wanted to ask the Minister about. Government amendment No. 34 inserts a note into schedule 14 stating that the repeal of section 2 of the National Lottery etc. Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland. I would like the Minister to explain why that is being inserted into the Bill, because I do not understand what makes Northern Ireland different. I would be grateful if he responded to that point.

Peter Pike: Just for clarity, I was not saying that the issue was not important. I was saying that it was
 not an offence that related to the clause that we are debating.

Richard Caborn: I shall respond to the question that was asked about entering, which is the word the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) used. ''Entering'' is used in the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, which is why it appears in the amendments—to maintain consistency. On the question of Northern Ireland, none of the provisions in the Bill will extend to that country. The amendment simply prevents the repeal of section 2 of the 1993 Act in Northern Ireland. That was the explanation I gave, and I stand by it.

Bob Russell: I am sorry if this sounds pedantic, but although I understand the advice given I am now more puzzled as to why the original wording in the previous amendments was carried. I cannot work out why it is necessary to include the two phraseologies in the same Bill.

Richard Caborn: I thought that I had given a reasonable explanation of that. I shall ask my officials and counsel to supply further explanation if the hon. Gentleman is still concerned about the wording, and I shall return that to the Committee. The advice given by counsel was to maintain consistency and simplicity and to marry the national lottery with provisions in the Bill, which we believe protects the punter even more than at the moment. If that is not right, I shall return to the matter and explain it to the Committee.

Don Foster: Is the Minister saying that, given that it was necessary to table amendments to the draft Bill, the Licensing Act 2003 would equally benefit from such changes—in other words, the National Lottery etc. Act wrong?

Richard Caborn: I am not saying that the 1993 Act is wrong. We believe that there are more protections relating to offences under the Bill that were not in the 1993 Act. If the hon. Gentleman reads my explanation in Hansard tomorrow, it will be clear that where we are using the powers in the Bill, weaknesses in the 1993 Act will be strengthened by the amendments.

Malcolm Moss: The last line of new schedule 1 states:
'' 'lottery' has the same meaning as in the Gambling Act 2005''.
 I am not aware of a Gambling Act 2005. Are we now legislating on the basis of what may or may not happen in the future?

Richard Caborn: We can dance on a pinhead if we want to, but I thought that this was the Gambling Act 2005.

Malcolm Moss: Where does it say that?

Richard Caborn: It will become law in 2005.

Bob Russell: It could be the Gambling Act 2004 if we hurried up.

Richard Caborn: In that case, we would table an amendment and make it 2004.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Richard Caborn: One purpose of the Bill is to streamline the regulation of gambling, so that it is consistent
 across all forms of gambling. Until now, gambling regulation has operated separately and differently for different forms of gambling. The Bill will introduce consistency by means of a regulatory mechanism. The product of that is that we need a single definition of gambling that is regulated by the Bill.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Remote gambling

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 75, in
clause 4, page 2, line 18, at end insert 
 'other than that used for the playing of linked and multiple bingo under a bingo operator's licence.'.
 The game of linked bingo is played simultaneously in a number of bingo club premises linked by a two-way audio connection, so that the drawing and the calling of the numbers are contemporaneous. The calling takes place in one of the premises and is heard in all the others. A claim in one of the premises is also heard in the others. That type of bingo may be played only under the authority of a bingo club licence issued under part II of the Gaming Act 1968. Almost 580 bingo clubs play linked bingo at some time, although they do not play it in one link because technology cannot yet accommodate that number of premises in a fully interactive mode. 
 Multiple bingo is played jointly in different bingo clubs, with the drawing of the number taking place before the beginning of the game at a central location licensed especially for that purpose. Those numbers are transmitted via a computer connection to all participating bingo clubs. The game is played in each of the participating clubs and numbers are called in a specified period that begins and ends at the same time for all clubs. Each club produces its winner, the details of whom are transmitted back to the central location. The overall winner is the person who called ''House'' with the lowest number of numbers called. That type of bingo was authorised by the Gaming (Bingo) Act 1985. It may be played only in bingo club premises licensed under part II of the Gaming Act. About 450 clubs play the main form of multiple bingo, which is called the ''national game'', every day of the year except Christmas day. 
 Thus, while the two games are slightly different, both use a link. That link between premises operates by means of remote communication. The clause on remote gambling discusses remote communication. The fear is that, because of the link by the normal communication channels covered in clause 4, the clubs will be faced with a licence under remote gambling as well as their licence for bingo. The amendment seeks to ensure that that is not the case and to include in the Bill provision that those clubs may derogate from the all-embracing catch-all situation outlined by remote communication in clause 4.

Richard Page: I will be commendably brief. I support what my hon. Friend said. I think that the area is a valuable one on which to get clarification. I, too, have
 received various representations from those connected with the bingo industry. The clause is of great concern and, unless it is satisfactorily cleared up, it will be much more difficult for bingo clubs to compete with casinos with prizes of any value. I would be grateful if, when the Minister answers, he told me whether the clause also covers the linking of casinos for prizes. As he probably knows, if one goes into a casino, one can place a bet on poker and, by placing an extra sum of money, link into a central scheme that includes more than one casino, so that there may be quite a large jackpot at the end of the day. I am curious to know whether this part of the clause covers that.

Richard Caborn: Amendment No. 75 would exclude linked or multiple bingo from clause 4, which covers remote gambling. The Government are resisting that.
 The Bill contains a clause setting out the concept of remote gambling to cover gambling where the participants are not face to face on the same premises. Players who participate in linked or multiple bingo in different bingo halls are clearly neither face to face nor on the same premises. 
 Linked or multiple bingo takes place in many separate bingo halls throughout the country. The Bill does much to remove the burdens on bingo operators, particularly those relating to linked or multiple bingo. Such bingo is currently subject to a host of detailed regulation, such as rules about conduct and financial limits. The Bill does away with that, but it would not be appropriate to exclude such bingo from clause 4. Any gambling that is operated with remote communication equipment must be regulated through the appropriate licence by the gambling commission. Companies wishing to offer linked or multiple bingo will require a remote bingo operating licence with appropriate licence conditions to ensure fairness and protection for players. Bingo halls with a general bingo operating and premises licence will be able to offer linked or multiple bingo if they hold a remote bingo operating licence, or they can use the services of someone else who holds a licence. 
 The Bill must maintain coherent regulation of remote gambling and the amendment would damage that, so I ask the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire to withdraw his amendment. 
 In reply to the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire, the answer is yes.

Bob Russell: So that there can be no doubt, will the Minister confirm that he said that the linked bingo games that currently take place will continue to take place and that nothing in the Bill will prevent that?

Richard Caborn: That is correct.

Malcolm Moss: I was a bit saddened to hear the Minister's comments. We had a discussion earlier today about level playing fields, competition, fairness and so on, but one part of our entertainment and gambling industry must apparently pay two licence fees. If I heard the Minister correctly, there will be one licence fee under the bingo operator regulations and another for remote gambling under clause 4. I
 understood him to say that there would have to be such regulation. Bingo institutions are regulated under the gambling commission anyway, so I do not see a problem—they will come within the wider remit of the commission. They are extremely worried that if they are caught by clause 4 on remote gambling they will have to pay an extra licence fee.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt share my concern about the future viability of the 519 remaining stand-alone bingo halls in the face of the threat from casinos. The issue that he is properly addressing is that we must ensure that they can continue without added cost or regulatory burden. However, did he hear the Minister say—perhaps he will ask him to clarify this—that, under the Bill, overall, the pressures on bingo halls, particularly stand-alone ones that want to link together, will be eased? Perhaps he will ask the Minister to give a clear assurance that the net effect will be a reduction in the financial and regulatory burden on such premises.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an excellent question. I am not sure that the Minister heard it because he is involved in trying to find a way forward.

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman wants answers, does he not?

Malcolm Moss: Yes, of course.

Richard Caborn: He should not be critical then.

Malcolm Moss: I was not being critical. I was just wondering whether the Minister heard the question that was asked.
 The issue is whether bingo organisations will face an extra licence fee and extra regulation. The Minister promised that there would be relaxations in all sorts of areas. To summarise the question of the hon. Member for Bath, is the net effect going to be on the right side of the balance sheet? I suspect, as with all regulatory things, that the answer is no.

Richard Caborn: I did listen to the hon. Member for Bath, and I will try to answer his question. The Bill says that an operator needs an operating licence and a remote gambling licence, but a separate licence is already needed for multiple bingo. As I said when I explained why I want the amendment to be withdrawn—I suggest that the hon. Gentleman discusses this with the people who drafted the amendment—bingo is subject to a host of detailed regulation, such as rules about conduct and fines, which the Bill will do away with. It will simplify the operation of those licences. There will be two licences, but their operation will be simplified with the removal of detailed regulation.

Don Foster: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but, for the avoidance of doubt, and because the issue of bingo halls is going to come up on several occasions, will he write urgently to members of the Committee to set out that balance sheet in terms of added and reduced regulation and cost, so that we have the net pros and cons of the legislation as it will affect bingo halls?

Richard Caborn: I will do that. In the meantime, I will give the Committee details of the controls that will be
 removed. Times of games, number of games and maximum stakes will all be in the single licence. That type of detailed regulation will be taken from the operators and streamlined, so that they will, I hope, be able to operate their businesses more cost-effectively.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I hear what the Minister says, and I am sure that the reduction in bureaucracy attached to the licences will be welcome news to bingo halls, but, as they will be licensed by the gambling commission anyway, why cannot the Government scrap one of the licences, so that bingo halls will need only one licence? Surely that would be a much more sensible way to proceed, and would make it much easier for those fairly benign forms of entertainment to continue in business and to compete with the new super-casinos.

Richard Caborn: It is a different clientele. We believe that remote gambling should be regulated and licensed appropriately. I do not believe that the way in which we will operate the licences will bring a heavier burden. In fact, it will be much more holistic, and will no longer be about times of games, number of games and maximum stakes. The Bill streamlines that regulation and protects the customer.
 One reason that we are discussing this Bill is remote gambling, not just here but across the piece. That is why the Budd report was initiated—we cannot control remote gambling under current legislation. The proposed licensing regime is reasonable and proportionate.

Malcolm Moss: I am still not entirely clear as to what bingo clubs will end up paying. I see the purity of the Minister's argument. It is remote gambling. It is carried out using a communication wire, airwaves, or whatever, so it comes under the basics on remote gambling in the clause. We are not arguing about that. It may well be that that has to be the regulatory place for that particular type of game, but bingo clubs fear that it will translate into an extra licence.
 There have been no problems with running those two types of bingo game. Bingo clubs have been doing so for some years. They are important to the clubs, which are saying, ''Can they not just be taken under our normal licensing and regulatory framework? Why do we have to go under this legislation as a completely new organisation if it means a new licence fee?'' We accept, and I am sure they do, that the Bill relaxes some of the bureaucracy that they have hitherto had to deal with, and that is a bonus for which I am sure they are very grateful. However, the Bill does not pay money out. They must pay out an extra licence fee from the bottom-line profit of their business. 
 At the same time, as we deregulate to provide more competition for our punters, bingo operators are saying that a new wave of gambling and casinos is coming, so they are under pressure as their cost base rises. If the Minister can assure us that their current fee to run linked and multiple bingo will be no different from the one that they will pay under remote gambling, they would like to see that on the record.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman is being remarkably optimistic. If we wait as long for the fee structure under this legislation as we have for that under the Licensing Act, we will be in for a very long wait.

Malcolm Moss: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but if the Minister could put on record that there will be no increased regulatory burden with extra licence fees placed on bingo clubs, some assurance and crumbs of comfort from him would not go amiss, because, according to the bingo clubs' reading of being caught by clause 4, that is exactly what will happen.

Richard Page: Although I have immense sympathy with the point being argued by my hon. Friend, I ask him to think of the problem that the Government have with slot machines in casinos that are not granted category A machines. What would happen if they wanted to link up their slot machines for remote gambling as well? They would have to be subject to a licence, so as much as I would like it I cannot see the bingo organisers being able to establish the link-up unless their top prize is limited to the same sort of payouts.

Malcolm Moss: It is my reading that the payouts under linked and multiple bingo are not as large as the potential payouts for linked machines in casinos. The Government have rightly said that those linked machines will not be allowed because the prize money would be too great. The Government will not countenance that at this stage, and I probably agree with their affording that protection. Linked and multiple bingo games have been played for some years and there has never been a problem. They are small-scale and low-key but important games for bingo clubs. The clubs may be under licence and they may pay a fee, which is fine, but all we need to know is that in future their licence fee will be the same as or less than what they pay now. They are fearful that their costs will go up.

Richard Caborn: I did not quite follow the hon. Gentleman's rationale. There are two sets of operations, including those that want to play only bingo and are not involved in remote bingo at all. I assume the proposition being made is that there is one licence fee, and those clubs that want to play only bingo, without remote bingo, will effectively subsidise the licence for those that provide remote gambling as well.
 If there were only one licence fee, those that did not want remote gambling would have to pay for the licence for it, as they operate in a single entity. The reason for having two operations is that if those clubs that have a licence to operate without remote gambling decide to provide remote gambling on top of that, they must obtain a further licence. That is the rationale behind two licences. The system operates at the moment, because multiple bingo needs a separate licence. The Bill refines that system and removes many of the detailed constraints.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister is being very patient and I will try not to try his patience any longer. Why is it not possible to have a single licensing
 procedure, but perhaps differential pricing for those wishing to engage in remote bingo?

Richard Caborn: The answer to that is that I do not know. I will ask my officials. No doubt the gambling commission, when it is set up, will consider ways in which it can refine the situation. However, the crude proposition that has been put today could result in a disadvantage to those single operators of bingo who do not want to get involved in remote gambling. They could find themselves paying a larger licence fee than they would do if we kept the two licences. I have no doubt that the gambling commission will, among its many and varied activities, be able to consider the continued refinement of the measures.
 The whole idea of the Bill is to take us away from the 1968 Act, which was incredibly prescriptive. We are trying to give a macro-framework in which the new regulator, the gambling commission, will be able to take action and will have a tremendous amount of flexibility and power. It will report to Parliament. The 1968 Act is so restrictive that if people want to increase the payout of a slot machine, the matter has to be brought back to the House of Commons, so we are trying to move away from the Act. 
 I hope that the gambling commission will be able to take on board issues such as the one that we are discussing. It will have the power to continue to refine things and as long as it reports back to Parliament—it is accountable in that, as all the regulators are—we will see a much more efficient and effective gambling industry, with some of the unacceptable constraints and bureaucracies removed. The Bill provides a framework in which gambling can operate. The operation itself will be down not to Parliament, but to a gambling commission with the power to carry that out.

Bob Russell: The Minister has already confirmed that linked bingo as we know it is not affected by the Bill. I am a little confused, however. He has stated that currently two licences are required. Will two licences still be required, or will it be three licences because of clause 4? Or, if we cut around all the verbiage, is it the case that there will be no difference whatever to the bingo regimes that we know already, that people will still be able to play linked bingo, and that there will not be any additional licences or fees? In other words, will we have the status quo?

Richard Caborn: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no additional licences. There are two licences now and there will be two in future. What we will be doing is refining the operation of the system.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister's last statement was important. As I understand it, an assurance was given that there would be no increase in the fee structure.

Richard Caborn: I did not say that.

Malcolm Moss: That is fine. I was just probing. I almost got there, but not quite.

Peter Pike: Order. It is helpful if remarks are made through the Chair, rather than having a lot of interventions, because Hansard finds them difficult.

Malcolm Moss: I have heard what the Minister has said and a lot of it is good sense.

Clive Efford: The hon. Gentleman has confused me a little, so I would like him to clarify things. When he tabled the amendment, was he aware that there are two existing licences? If he was, was his amendment intended to ask for the abolition of the licence fee for remote bingo games? If a bingo operator who does not have access to remote bingo is paying the same flat-rate licence fee as an operator who does, is that fair in terms of competition?

Malcolm Moss: It is more a question of an unknown. At least operators know where they stand at the moment. They do not know where they stand under the arrangements proposed in clause 4. They do not know what being caught under the remote gambling clause will mean to them in terms of future costs. All that we have sought to do in the debate is get an assurance that the fee structure will not be wildly different. No one has set the fee structure for remote gambling yet. No one disagrees that this is an important clause. No one is saying that internet gambling is a key issue that we all seek to address, and that this is the clause that does that. People simply believe that what they have been doing quietly and comfortably for years without causing anyone problems is suddenly being brought into the regulatory net, which is there to catch a completely new form of gambling—internet gambling by remote communication.
 The Minister has made his points, which are recorded in Hansard. No doubt the bingo people will come back to us, and we can deal with the matter later in our consideration of the Bill. I have put on record what they wanted to achieve. They did not want to press the matter to a vote. Only they can say whether they got the clarification that they sought. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: I wanted to deal on stand part with a possible role for Ofcom in this area. I vividly remember our very lengthy debates on broadcasting and communications Bills, and it rather surprised me to find that there was no reference to such a role, given that the lay observer or even the interested parliamentary observer might think that this was precisely the sort of policy area with which it would be appropriate for Ofcom to deal. It struck me that a debate on a clause entitled ''Remote gambling'' was a useful opportunity to probe the Minister on this issue, because I suspect that those in another place who will consider the Bill in due course might want to return to it.
 I refer members of the Committee who do not have the good fortune, as I do, to sit on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee to my very recent experience as one of many taking evidence—from Ofcom, among 
 others—for the Committee's current inquiry into the BBC charter. It became clear that in this multimedia, multi-channel world in which we live, Ofcom is considering how all the aspects of the internet, television and all sorts of broadcasting are linked. Clearly, remote gambling is part of that. 
 The Government may believe that they have already given Ofcom enough power and do not want to give it any more. Given that remote communication in subsection (2) means communication using the internet, the telephone, television, radio or any other sort of electronic or other technology for facilitating communication, it strikes me that several subsections are already either in whole or in part under Ofcom's regulatory remit. I know that the main regulator set up by the Bill is the new gambling commission, but there should also be a role for Ofcom in remote gambling, and the Bill should set out the contrasting responsibilities of Ofcom and the gambling commission. 
 I raise the issue at this point in our consideration of the Bill because we are discussing the clause entitled ''Remote gambling''. We may return to the issue, but I suspect that the new gambling commission, which the Government will set up if the Bill comes into force, will find constant conflicts between its own remit and Ofcom's remit for dealing with the internet. It may be a recipe for problems if we do not write into the Bill something that defines their different remits. The Bill does not refer anywhere to Ofcom in this respect. I therefore express my concern now in the hope that the Minister and his officials will think about it, even if they have not yet done so. 
 I may be Cassandra crying in the wilderness, but I predict that, without such a definition, there will be problems in future if they cannot give me a definite answer today in this clause stand part debate, and if the Bill completes its passage and becomes law. I therefore hope that the Minister will think about the fact that there should be a role for Ofcom. The boundaries between Ofcom's remit to try to deal with the internet, and that of the new gambling commission, should be on the face of the Bill.

Richard Caborn: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's point about Ofcom. This is a Gambling Bill, not a communications Bill, and it is about licensing gambling. That is what the regulator—the new gambling commission—will do. The medium in which the gambling takes place is another issue, but the Bill does not address that.
 Ofcom can play a role, and is closely involved, under part 16 on advertising. That is a limited part, but the Bill is about licensing gambling, not licensing the internet or any other form of communication. The arguments and questions that have been put forward have been predicated on the wrong basis. Ofcom regulates communication; the Bill regulates gambling. 
 Clause 4 contains a definition of ''remote gambling''. As has been suggested, it is an important clause. The Budd report was based on the need for the Government to regulate remote gambling. The concept—gambling by means of media such as the 
 internet and interactive television—does not feature in current gambling law, which was drawn up when those technologies did not exist. Consequentially, although remote gambling has grown a lot in recent years and looks set to continue to do so, it is not subject to any of the regulation that it needs. It is common ground that the Bill should make proper provision for remote gambling, bearing it in mind that it has characteristics that more traditional kinds of gambling do not. 
 Some of the characteristics of remote gambling present special risks, which the new system of regulation needs to address. Sometimes technology offers the prospect of new safeguards, which it is more difficult to incorporate into older kinds of gambling. The starting point for effective regulation is to define the activities to be regulated; that is what we do in clause 4. 
 The clause also recognises that technology will continue to develop, possibly in ways that nobody here can even start to anticipate. Where technology has led, gambling will surely follow. The system of regulation for which the Bill provides needs to be as flexible, and hopefully as future-proof, as possible.

Nick Hawkins: I know that I am taking the Minister back to the first part of his remarks, when he responded to what I said. He is absolutely right, of course: part 16 is the one part that refers to Ofcom, because it deals with advertising. However, the Minister has slightly missed the point. I accept entirely that Ofcom has a role in advertising. However, as the Minister knows full well, it is not only the advertising of gambling that takes place over the internet, but the gambling itself. [Interruption.] Well, it is this clause on remote gambling and the internet, which talks about remote communication, that gives Ofcom no role at all.
 Ofcom is trying to deal with a lot of other aspects of the internet, and the gambling is taking place over the internet, so the Government are mistaken in thinking that they can limit the issues that Ofcom will deal with only to advertising. The Minister has to think about that again, and I hope that at the very least he will undertake to consider with his officials the point that I have made. When the Bill comes into force, if it is in anything like its current form, Ofcom will be dealing with issues of gambling over the internet. It will not be good enough to say that it can only deal with advertising. The gambling takes place over the internet.

Richard Caborn: We can have discussion and debate, but I do not accept the premise of the argument. Ofcom does not regulate everything that goes on to the internet. We are talking about the act of gambling, and that is why we are setting up a new regulation for gambling, in whatever form that takes: whether it is through the internet, in a betting shop, in bingo halls or through the lottery—the whole lot. We are licensing the act of gambling. As for the fact that it takes place through the internet, then fine, we have not been able to control that under the old regulations and laws. We will be able to do that under the Bill. That is what Budd had to consider and it is why we set up the Budd review.

Don Foster: I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I am increasingly confused by his responses. For example, let us consider the TV programme ''Have a go'', which is an interactive television gambling station that makes a great deal of money on a small audience. Clearly Ofcom will have a role in deciding whether ''Have a go'' should be granted access to the airways. There is an issue that the right hon. Gentleman raises with that one example.
 Life could get complicated. If I were being facetious I could ask whether it would be necessary for the producers of ''Who wants to be a millionaire?'' to have a remote gambling licence when a contestant phones a friend. There is both an element of chance and an element of skill in attempting to obtain a prize. There are issues in which Ofcom will be involved. But that does not alter the points that are in the Bill. The Minister would do well merely to acknowledge that there is a role for Ofcom, without saying that it is necessary to include it in these clauses.

Richard Caborn: There is a role for Ofcom, because Ofcom is a regulator. Anybody with a related product will have to abide by the regulation of Ofcom. The gambling commission will regulate gambling. The hon. Gentleman is mixing up the two things. I resist his suggestion because his argument is predicated on the wrong approach to the Bill, which is about regulating gambling. Ofcom is the regulator under the Communications Act 2003.

Nick Hawkins: Will the Minister give way for the last time?

Richard Caborn: It is the last time.

Nick Hawkins: This is my last point. The hon. Member for Bath has assisted me, although he gave a slightly far-fetched example. My concern was that it is not possible in these days of the internet to put categories of activity into distinct boxes as the Minister seeks to do. It is not possible to say that Ofcom regulates advertising and the gambling commission regulates gambling. That is not how the internet works.
 I would trespass on your good will too far, Mr. Pike, if I referred to an amendment that had not been selected, but the Minister knows that there is huge concern that there has been insufficient regulation of things on the internet. For example, when using the internet, people can encounter pop-ups that try to tempt them into using a gambling site or to go to a pornographic site. When dealing with the internet, it is not possible to have separate and distinct pots. We are talking about a seamless web. That is why I foresee that—to some extent the hon. Member for Bath was agreeing with me—unless we recognise that that is how the internet operates, we cannot say that Ofcom will deal only with advertising.

Richard Caborn: We all watch football on television, but Ofcom does not regulate football either—probably some wish that it did. There are many examples that we could debate. Ofcom has a statutory responsibility as a regulator. It will carry out that duty. Where that affects this industry, it will be dealt with. The gambling commission is a regulator for gambling in whatever medium it is carried out.
 The system of regulation that the Bill provides needs to be as flexible and future-proof as possible. We do not want to have to come back to Parliament with amendments that spring solely from technological advances that provide one more medium by which remote gambling can be carried out. Subsection (3) accordingly provides for statutory regulations that will enable the legislation to take account of changes in remote communication. 
 By definition we do not know what forms of remote communication might be involved or when—or indeed if—these powers might ever need to be activated. If we did, we would have made provision in subsection (2) already. Experience teaches us that it is necessary to have the reserve powers in subsection (3) as shots in the locker. We are trying to frame a piece of regulation and law that can be future-proof so that we do not have to keep coming back with amendments.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am sorry to raise a whole new avenue, but it is not covered by the clause and it needs to be addressed. I understand that it is possible to license only that material on the internet that originates from the UK jurisdiction. Has the Minister any ideas on how he will license gambling that comes via the internet but not from the UK jurisdiction?

Richard Caborn: The answer is no; that is the advice that I am given. Again, however, one might want to consider that issue. If there are reasons to do what is suggested, I shall get back to the hon. Gentleman.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister's reply is very interesting, because it has just opened up an evasion industry. Anyone who wants to gamble over the internet will simply go to another jurisdiction and avoid the provisions of the Bill.

Richard Caborn: In the real world, people will want to operate from the shores of this island, because of the regulation that we are putting in place. In addition, people will want to bet with companies that operate from the shores of these isles, because they will know that they will be treated fairly; indeed, they will get what they deserve.

Clive Efford: Will the Minister give way?

Richard Caborn: I will in a moment. The Gaming Act 1968 has created what is probably the most credible betting and gambling industry in the world, because of the way in which we have been able to regulate and have regulated. The situation here is transparent. People are law-abiding and they get a fair crack of the whip. We are trying to translate that into the Gambling Bill. That is the context in which people will want to lay a bet. That is the real world. If we want to get into semantics, someone may go offshore, but anyone who bets with a company offshore will have to look very carefully at the terms of the regulation applying to that operator.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I hear what the Minister is saying and I have every sympathy with it, but how will the consumer—the potential gambler—know which internet sites are properly licensed and which are not? Do the Government intend to establish, for example, a form of kitemark or give some warning so that people
 know whether they are dealing with regulated or unregulated gambling providers?

Richard Caborn: I do not know what the British standard is for gambling, but I will find out because my officials will tell me. While I am finding out, I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford).

Clive Efford: The internet is also a problem in respect of matters that are not related to gambling. I have been raising questions in the House about the sale of prescription drugs over the internet, where they are on offer from companies across Europe and not only elsewhere in the world. One would expect there to be some sort of partnership arrangement for regulating in such sectors, but drugs are on sale on the internet. People in this country can obtain drugs over the internet, although they should not be able to obtain them without a prescription in this country. The problem of that loophole exists not only in relation to gambling but in a range of sectors.

Richard Caborn: My hon. Friend is right. The consumer has to make the decision. If a company operates from these shores, it will be able to tell the consumer when they want to lay a bet that it is regulated by British regulation and by the gambling commission. That information will be there for people to see. If people do not want to operate in that way, there is nothing to stop them, but they know, or they may well know, that they will not get the protection that they get under British law.

Don Foster: Is the Minister aware that the majority of the industry that operates in this sector is very keen on this regulation? It believes that it is selling integrity and that the regulation provides it with evidence of that integrity. Is he further aware that Betfair, which is one of the largest providers of the type of facility that we are discussing, is desperately trying to persuade the Australian Government to introduce regulation of its activities in Australia and is desperately unhappy that that Government are failing to do so?

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I spoke to the international regulators a little while ago, when I was dealing with the first stage of the proposals. There has been a great deal of discussion of whether international standards can be achieved. We, the Australians, the New Zealanders and, I think, the Americans were seriously looking at that. There is a case for it. In the light of what we are doing and the number of countries that are looking to the Bill, particularly after the experiences of Australia and New Zealand, there may well be a good case for international regulation, voluntary though that may be. It would give punters the assurances for which they are looking. The hon. Member for Bath is absolutely right. Many operators are asking that we bring in these regulations. Such regulation has them in good stead in the past and contributed to the integrity of the industry. It would be a win-win situation for the British industry if we could translate that into the Bill.

Kevan Jones: I do not want to send the hon. Member for Surrey Heath into hyperspace, but could not the matter be considered by the European Union?

Richard Caborn: Very much so. As I said, the international regulators meet from time to time. I met them when they were at Earl's Court a little while ago—some 18 months or two years ago—and there was a great deal of interest expressed. The issue moves on. It is not just about problem gambling and the research that needs to be done on that. There is much around regulation besides the integrity of the industry. Also, problems can be addressed within the industry. The Australians were keen on it at that time.
 Yes, there is a European dimension, but there must be an international dimension because of the internet and the ability to pass information electronically around the world at great speed. Regulations would have to be international if they were to be truly effective.

Nick Hawkins: Will the Minister give way on a separate point?

Richard Caborn: I thought that the previous time was the last one.

Nick Hawkins: That was before my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) intervened and raised a different point. I assure the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) that he will not send me into hyperspace. My point is a slightly different one.
 On the issue raised by my hon. Friend, would not it be useful for British business if the Minister were to put something in the Bill to show that there was no regulatory gap between the two regulators, the gambling commission and Ofcom? If that were in the Bill, there could be something like an Ofcom kitemark for UK providers, which would give potential punters some sense of security. That might be very helpful for British industry, with which we as UK Members of Parliament ought to be principally concerned.

Richard Caborn: It would, were it permissible. I understand that it would not be permitted under European Union competition law and so would be out of court.

Nick Hawkins: That just shows the problems with Europe, does it not?

Richard Caborn: That is another debate. We could debate Europe, but I am sure that you would pull me up, Mr. Pike.

Peter Pike: I certainly would.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Facilities for gambling

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 82, in
clause 5, page 2, line 27, leave out 'operates and administers' and insert 
 'in whole or in part or operates'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 83, in 
clause 5, page 2, line 29, leave out 
 'in the operation or administration' 
 and insert 
 'directly or indirectly in the operation'.
 Amendment No. 40, in 
clause 5, page 2, line 35, leave out paragraph (b).
 Amendment No. 84, in 
clause 5, page 2, line 35, leave out 'operating or administering' and insert 'or operating'.
 Amendment No. 41, in 
clause 5, page 2, line 43, leave out '(despite subsection (3)(d))'.
 Amendment No. 85, in 
clause 5, page 3, line 3, at end add— 
 '(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that a specified activity or an activity carried on in specified circumstances is or is not to be treated for the purposes of this Act as providing facilities for gambling.'.

Malcolm Moss: It would be helpful to discuss amendments Nos. 82, 83 and 84 together. They propose textual changes and relate to the same form of words in each case. There is a feeling that the words ''administers'' and ''administration'' do not sit comfortably in the clause. It is thought that they
 could be open to litigation, and I have been advised that it would be clearer and more appropriate to leave out the word ''administers'' and simply concentrate on the word ''operates''. That is what the three amendments together seek to do.
 Amendment No. 85 would add new subsection (4) at the end of clause 5. The amendment would allow a mechanism for the Secretary of State to clarify that certain activities do not fall within the definition of providing facilities for gambling. It is felt that that could be helpful and important, particularly for clarifying whether providing facilities for gambling includes, for example, a bank holding stake money, or a gambling operator, accountant or credit card company providing finance directly or indirectly for gambling. The amendment is an attempt to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to define accurately and specifically those areas that are caught in the net and those that are not. 
 Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Watson.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Five o'clock until Thursday 11 November at half-past Nine o'clock.